More from the Author

Gilead had come up with an innovative drug for Hepatitis C, which affected 180 million people worldwide. The drug was priced at $1,000 a pill for the US market. Gilead had to decide how to price and market the pill in developing countries that bore the brunt of the disease. The company had earned accolades for its work in HIV/AIDS, where its innovative medicines now accounted for 60% of all patients on Anti-Retroviral (ARV) medicines. Much of this was accomplished through generic licensing, which brought a $10,000/year treatment regimen down to $100! Should the company replicate that strategy for Hepatitis C? If so, how would its US Healthcare customers, who were paying $84,000 per patient, react? On the other hand, Gilead had to balance the interests of its shareholders, who paid $11 billion for an acquisition that led to the new Hepatitis C drug.

The article discusses corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs. In the authors' view many of these programs consist of disparate, uncoordinated initiatives that fail to maximize their impact. They recommend a more coherent strategy that divides CSR efforts into three categories including those related to philanthropy, operational effectiveness, and shaping the firm's business model to better create shared value. Consideration is also given to developing metrics for assessing CSR performance.